capt_oats

Minumum charge for 4th round tie is £8. 40. Minimum Charge for Admission Subject to a minimum adult non concessionary charge for admission to matches in the Preliminary Round (if applicable), Round One, Round Two and Round Three, of £5, and of £8 for matches in subsequent Rounds excluding the Semi-Final and Final Ties, the charges for admission shall be arranged by the competing clubs. If they are unable to agree, the charges which are normally made for the regular fixtures of the club at whose ground the match is to be played, will apply.

I'd noticed that as well then he popped up in the u20s game against Falkirk a couple of weeks ago but was out again vs Hibs the next game. Before the Falkirk game the last time he appeared for the 20s was 15th September vs Dunfermline which was the day Samson signed. Given our somewhat bloated squad or more accurately the fact that we have a number of players who aren't seeing any game time at all on our books, I wouldn't be surprised if he was looking to move on in January, or at the very least loaned out until the end of the season.

He signed a 3 year deal with Boro in July just there so I doubt we could afford to sign him at the end of the season.

Mitch has pretty much summed up my view on Ripley; better than Dan/Hollis not as good as Randolph or Ruddy (who was at fault for the goal Norwich lost at the weekend co-incidentally). As far as the 2 goals he conceded at the weekend go yeah he could maybe have done better but he was left exposed by his back 4 for the first and for the 2nd our midfield and defence just let Sow hit it, certainly you can ask a question of whether or not someone of Ripley's size should be beaten from 30 yards but at the same time if a midfielder closes him and puts him under pressure then he doesn't hit it anywhere near as cleanly or he doesn't bother and just shifts the ball out to his left. In the end we stood and watched him. The idea that Ripley was exclusively at fault for the goals is just harsh in the extreme. There's a case to be made for him having cost us a few goals this season, no doubt but I don't think that's the case with those conceded on Saturday.

Could have been any of the midfield 3 but Grimshaw gets my vote.

I thought Ripley was a bit of a mixed bag. Made some cracking stops, one in the 1st half he tipped over the bar springs to mind but equally there was a fair amount of hesitancy. With the first goal maybe he could have been out a bit quicker but as I said in an earlier post the back 4 had chances to deal with it before Juanma gets through 1v1. Kennedy misjudges the ball and is bullied, McManus realises he can't win the tackle but doesn't manage to hold Sow up enough. No one really comes out of that with any credit tbf. The 2nd? Shouldn't be being beaten by a shot from that distance that's straight down the middle of the goals but equally the amount of time and space Sow has to hit it is criminal.

Would have taken a point from this before the game so happy enough with that and a significantly improved performance. Thought their first should have been dealt with before he even got through on Ripley. Kennedy in particular had an incredibly shaky start for some reason. I don't know if it was the conditions or what but he, McManus and Ripley seemed really hesitant on a number of occasions. On the whole though I felt we more than matched Hearts and I guess the fact that we saw out the draw is something, especially given we were giving a fair few needless free kicks away.

Fair point, it was intended to be illustrative more than anything else. He seems to want to play 3 central midfielders so unless Johnson dramatically modifies his game I'd imagine it'd be either/or between him and Ainsworth for the position on the wing. I'm not sure how telling this is but I think I'm right in saying that Leitch is the only one of the outfield players in the first team squad who hasn't seen any game time under McGhee yet has been on the bench for 4 of his 5 games. If I'm being honest, in the context of the conversation here, supposing the 3 loan players do move back to their parent clubs, that's the position I'd think we need an upgrade for in January anyway. As I say, I like Grimshaw and he may well go on to have a decent enough career but at the moment he's not better than what we've got and what we need (IMO) is a player who is markedly better than either Lasley, Leitch or Grimshaw himself in there.

They've been doing promo this week, see the launch of the video etc so it's not really surprising that you're seeing some features running. I'd tie that more to a recruitment drive rather than correlating it with any impending financial trouble. Rather, to me, it means that the press folk working at the club/society are doing their job. Whilst obviously the loss posted is concerning, given the fact that as others have said it's the first year of a 5 year plan what I'd be interested to know is whether the business plan projected a loss for the first year and how much more this figure is vs their projection. Given the fact that we've seen investment in scouting (have we ever actually replaced the head of recruitment) and also sports science along with other staff taken on in various off the field capacities it would stand to reason that these initial start up spends would have seen a potential loss in the first year being likely before you even factor in any reduction in prize money/broadcasting. (This and the point directly below should probably be questions for the Financial situation thread though) Quick question, was the 2010/11 season the last time we actually posted a profit (£541,633)? You're right on the point about the number of sign ups, particularly in relation to the number of season ticket holders which I suppose is one of the baselines it should be judged against. However in order for it the to work I'd say the Society really needs to not only get ST holders fully on board but genuinely engage with non-ST holder and actually convince the fanbase that it will work and more to the point, how it will work. Simply pointing to Hearts and saying 'look at them' or reducing it to '£1 a week is all it will cost' isn't enough. The 2nd example actually rankles me a bit as rightly or wrongly it's been the overarching message that I've taken from their campaign, see the bit in the video where Mr McCafferty takes his £1 out his pocket for example. Intentional or not the tone the Society are presenting there, to me, doesn't strike the right note. It comes across as 'it's only £1, you won't miss it" the justification or rationale isn't that "we're competent and presenting a viable and credible option" but rather "you're a Motherwell supporter, it's only £1 so sign up" there's a presumption and sense of obligation there and for me that's an issue. You're still asking people to, to be blunt, donate their money (£60, £120, £240 etc pa) on top of what they already spend on ST or PATG so whether it's £1 a week or £10,000 a week it's still incumbent on them to convince the people they're asking that fan ownership is actually the right option. Fan ownership could, in the wrong hands, be as big a disaster for the club as some mental South American and to presume otherwise is quite misguided on the Society's part. In a way they seem to be making the mistake of assuming that everyone within the fanbase feels the same way as they do about the viability of fan ownership and are now wondering why people aren't signing up based on the message they've been putting across. That's one of the big problems when you surround yourself with like minded people I guess, it all becomes a bit of an echo chamber. For what it's worth and full disclosure I'm not a ST holder, I've been PATG pretty much since my Dad took me to my first game at Fir Park in 1986 and I'm not a WS member though I've almost signed up 3 or 4 times. Not to make the rest of the post about "me" but what would it take for me to sign up? I'm not the sort of person who is particularly interested in 'booster club politics' or AGMs, I've got no desire to meet the manager or have lunch with the players or get a branded bottle of wine as an incentive for handing over a lump sum or setting up a direct debit. In short I don't care about incentives or benefits of being a WS member, what I do care about is that the people running the club are the right people for the job whether they're fans or not. What would make me sign up (happily I might add) is having a convincing and credible message coming from the society and a sense that there is genuine leadership there and that they know what they're doing and how they plan to achieve it. Not simply that I should sign up because fan ownership is a brilliant idea and I'm a Motherwell supporter. We've seen so many mixed messages come from the Society to date even down to the revisions on the payment plans and many of the issues highlighted in this thread that the first thing they should be doing now is making sure that the message they're putting forward is coherent and credible. Personally I think that the role of the society should be, rather than outright ownership, a sort of checks and balances system. A body within the club running parallel to the owner (whoever that may be) but that's just me. As an aside to this ramble, given the apparent obsession with Hearts structure it's worth having a look at this interview with Ann Budge (http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/aug/01/hearts-ann-budge-soul-challenges) and comparing it with the messages that have come out of Fir Park/WS, perhaps most pertinently she plans to stick around once she hands over ownership whereas in our case we've been repeatedly told that Mr Hutchison has "no interest in owning a football club". I'd suggest that putting out a message that says "we have an owner who doesn't want to be involved" isn't a good first impression and one that leads fairly naturally to confusion. That's not a dig at Mr Hutchison, he's put his money in and I actually don't have a problem with him reminding people that he's done so since it would be easy to be complacent about that. Being reminded that fan ownership would remove a fairly significant safety net isn't a bad thing, indeed it's exactly the reason that it's as important that the WS show they're capable of running a football club. Anyway, sorry, this was only meant to be a couple of paragraphs replying to Milo's post. I got a bit carried away. Edit: 1st sentence of 2nd para amended.

I don't disagree, it's compounded by the fact that IIRC both Reid and Moore's loans are only until January so unless they extend with St Mirren and Ayr that's two players who will be coming back to the club. Realistically who can we move on? Ripley and Grimshaw's loans are only until January so that's two. Taylor's deal was supposedly until the end of the season with the 'break' option in January the club mentioned when he signed so presumably that means the deal can be finished early without too much hassle. Beyond that I suppose we're looking at players whose contracts finish in the summer. Given the recent accounts make harsh reading and given we've already had to sack Baraclough are we in a position to write off the remaining months of a couple of players contracts and bring another couple of players in who are substantially better than what we have or failing that would we anyone be willing to take guys like Robinson or Clarkson off our hands on loan to get them off the wage bill or in the case of Clarkson simply get him playing first team football again? If we were to extend Ripley's loan could we loan one of Samson or Twardzik? Lets assume that the 3 loanees go back to their parent clubs and both Reid and Moore extend their loans, that leaves us with a 1st team squad of 19 players for a match day squad of 17. I may be missing someone but by my count it'd be; GK - Samson, Twardzik DF - Hammell, McManus, Laing, Kennedy, Law, Chalmers MF - Lasley, Pearson, Ainsworth, Johnson, Thomas, J. Leitch FW - McDonald, Moult, Robinson, Fletcher, Clarkson From that 19 I'd have said you'd be looking at a first XI of; Samson Law - Kennedy - McManus - Hammell J. Leitch - Lasley - Pearson Ainsworth McDonald - Moult

I think this is the thing, much like Desp I think Ripley is the better of the 3 keepers but I don't think at the moment he's substantially better for it to be too much of a loss were he to go back to Boro and we see out the season with Samson with the caveat being that the budget being used is allocated to the midfield and bringing in a player who can affect that position. Taylor is just the wrong player for us on every level. Grimshaw I actually like and I think he's got a number of worthwhile attributes but as I said above we need a player in there who can actually improve the team and I don't think that's him at the moment. I'd argue that we don't actually need cover in midfield but rather we need a player who will be a first pick and will actually improve that area of the team rather than simply being a body there who's just 'alright'. Same goes for a few other positions, take Chalmers for example he was by all accounts brought in as 'cover', a direct replacement in the squad for Francis-Angol if you will. However ultimately given Hammell's increasingly persistent injury record what we actually needed was a player who is good enough to be a first team pick. Law is another one, on his day he's a decent enough right back who does a job and he's improved a bit in a few games under McGhee but to me he's a squad player at best.

Think our form against County is something like WXLXX. Score draw for me. 1-1 McDonald for us.

The website has a running total, though how accurate or up to date it is I don't know, at the time of me posting it's showing: Total member 1667 Adult members: 1263 Junior: 404 Again that just reflects membership it obviously doesn't break down what sort of amounts are being pledged or prior to that how much was paid upfront. http://www.thewellsociety.co.uk/progress/

Grimshaw for me.

Moult was it not?

I thought that as well but at the same time Johnson's struggled that much for form this season that it'd be a boot in the baws for him to get bumped after finally putting in a decent showing up at Pittodrie. I suppose it depends just how much an injury risk on the surface he actually is. Given this was the game that many identified as the "season starts here" fixture when McGhee got the job it'll be interesting to see if he looks to involve Ainsworth from the start. Also, given the amount that has been written here about how playing 2 wingers in a 442 leaves us exposed in the middle of the park it was noted that when McGhee floated the idea of playing with 2 wingers in his pre-game interview he tied it to playing 3 central midfielders. For me Leitch is the obvious candidate to step in for Lasley. If he wants roughly a like for like replacement in Lasley's role then it's clearly not Taylor though from listening to McGhee I'd expect him to get minutes at some point on Saturday as well.

Aye, McGhee ruled him out in his pre-game interview this afternoon.

I'm probably reading too much into it but there's also a psychological element to it. As poor as Celtic are they're still top of the league, I could imagine there was an element of using last Saturday as a test to see which players actually looked like they had any sort of motivation to turn up and compete against a "bigger" side. Essentially asking a question of the mentality of the players he hadn't seen much of.

Definitely. Though I've suggested he might start in that post above I think that both Fletcher and Moult are probably better fits for the central position in a front 3 with Ainsworth and (if he ever finds form again) Johnson on either side.

I think you'll probably see the 3 who dropped down to the bench last week start tomorrow. Question is whether or not he sticks with Law at right back, Laing in midfield and Moult on the left of the front 3 and how many changes he's willing to make. For me Dom Thomas is a much more obvious fit for that inside left role offensively but he doesn't have the work rate of Moult, who despite not being particularly suited to that role will still run all day. Suppose it's a question of which is more important re: Moult, his effort or playing him in a position that better suits him overall. Could see us going with something along the lines of; Ripley Grimshaw - Kennedy - McManus - Chalmers Lasley - Laing - Pearson Ainsworth - McDonald - Thomas

Seems McGhee isn't the first to see some potential in Laing as a defensive midfielder: "Laing who can also play as a defensive holding midfielder has represented England from under-16s to the under-19s" http://www.nottinghampost.com/Nottingham-Forest-set-sign-England-youth/story-21264071-detail/story.html "he's captained his country at Under-18s level but Ged McNamee and Kevin Ball at Sunderland both think he could be an excellent midfield player as well." http://www.nottinghampost.com/Louis-Laing-urged-seize-fantastic-opportunity/story-21281396-detail/story.html Not endorsing it as a definite way forward btw. Was just quite surprised that it's a position that he's actually been tried in before albeit in the development leagues.

When he arrived it was mentioned in the blurb the club put out that he can also play right back. "A centre back to trade but with the ability to also play at right back." http://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/2015/07/16/kennedy-is-signing-number-seven/ IIRC there are a couple of YouTube highlight clips of him playing at RB in some of his development teams but I totally agree with you, he's our best centre back by a mile at the moment. It'd be pretty mental to shift him over to right back given his recent form.

Absolutely agree. I should probably have phrased that point a bit better in honesty, was simply meaning how quickly he might be willing to act on u20s performances. There was just such a weird aversion to it developing under Baraclough this season particularly with regards addressing the right back position. Craigan obviously tried Grimshaw in there vs Thistle but reverted back to Law for the next game though clearly his remit was to work on an interim basis.

Happy to be corrected but off the top of my head 7 of our 14 goals against in the league this season have stemmed from the right back area (Aberdeen x2, United x1, St Johnstone x1, Accies x1, Dundee x1, Celtic x1 by my reckoning). Which isn't to pin everything solely on Law, there's plenty of blame to be passed around, however 50% is pretty high and at the very least suggests it's an area that obviously needs addressed one way or another. McGhee was saying that we need to start making teams work harder if they're going to score against us, playing defenders who can actually defend would probably be a good first step there. Will be interesting to see if McGhee ends up taking in any of the u20 games since you'd think he'd have to look at some sort of solution at right back be it Watt or even Reid. Possibly even give Grimshaw another shot at RB and see Lasley and Pearson +1 as the midfield 3.

Watching back the pre-game stuff on BT it was notable that Craigan remarked on the imbalance of the squad. Specifically pointing out the 5 strikers playing for one central role. If we're going to be going 433 then it needs players with specific attributes, there were pages of discussion on the ins/outs thread about the sort of midfielder that we're lacking and Baraclough completely failed to address that area of the park hence, presumably, McGhee's experiment with Laing in midfield. As much as the game seemed like a training game for Celtic equally, and a bit weirdly, it was even more so a training game for us.